Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2026
Comparison of laryngeal tube evo with tracheal intubation during intra-arrest-ventilation using biphasic positive pressure ventilation - a prospective randomized controlled body donor study.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the effects of the new supraglottic airway-device laryngeal tube evo (LT®evo) versus that of tracheal intubation (TI) concerning the target parameters of ventilation therapy during mechanical chest compressions in intra-arrest-ventilation with biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation.
methodsThis prospective randomized crossover study involving Thiel-embalmed human body donors, compares TI with LT®evo using biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Each body donor underwent ventilation with both airway-devices in randomized order. Ventilatory parameters were recorded at ventilator flow sensors. Primary endpoint was expiratory tidal volume (VTe), secondary endpoints included expiratory tidal volume per kg ideal body weight (VTe/kgIBW); delta tidal volume (ideal-VTe; ΔVT); leakage volume (VLeak); peak (PPeak), mean (PMean), plateau (PPlat) pressures; and respiratory rates.
resultsFive body donors were included. Linear regression analyses with random intercepts revealed lower VTe (-295.7 ± 8 ml; 95%CI:-339.2 to -252.2); p < 0.0001), VTe/kgIBW (-5.0 ml/kg; 95%:-5.7 to -4.2; p < 0.0001), PPeak (-19.0mbar; 95%CI:-23.1 to -14.9; p < 0.0001) and PMean (-2mbar; 95%CI:-3.2 to -0.8 ;p = 0.001) but higher ∆VT (296.0 ml; 95%CI:252.5 to 339.4; p < 0.0001) and VLeak (52.7%; 95%CI:41.6 to 63.7; p < 0.0001) for LT®evo. While all tracheal-intubated body donors (100%) were successfully ventilated with biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation (VTe/kgIBW > 2 ml/kg), only one of five body donors (20%) could be ventilated via LT®evo.
conclusionIn this body donor model of biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation, TI provided higher VTe and lower leakage than LT®evo did. LT®evo ventilation frequently failed to achieve tidal volumes above the estimated dead space. These findings suggest that LT®evo may be poorly suited for intra-arrest ventilation using biphasic-positive-airway-pressure-ventilation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. When the LT®evo is used in this setting, a synchronous 30:2 ventilation strategy may represent a safer alternative.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register; unique identifier: DRKS00037836; registration date: September 09, 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.